Montana
Spatial Analysis Project
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
December 2006
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2
Stewardship Analysis Project (SAP) Introduction.......................................................................... 5
SAP Implementation................................................................................................................. 5
Stewardship Potential Suitability Analysis..................................................................................... 7
Data Layer Development ............................................................................................................ 8
Forest Resource Richness ....................................................................................................... 8
1. Private Forestland ....................................................................................................... 8
2. Forest Patches ............................................................................................................. 9
3. Riparian River Areas................................................................................................. 10
4. Wetlands ................................................................................................................... 10
5. Slope ......................................................................................................................... 10
6. Proximity to Public Lands ........................................................................................ 11
7. Priority Watersheds................................................................................................... 11
8. Public Water Supply ................................................................................................. 12
9. Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................ 12
10.
Forest Productivity................................................................................................ 13
Forest Resource Threats........................................................................................................ 14
1. Wildfire Risk............................................................................................................. 14
2. Forest Health (Insects and Diseases) ........................................................................ 15
3. Development Level................................................................................................... 16
Analysis Masks ..................................................................................................................... 16
1. Forest stewardship potential on critical private lands............................................... 17
2. Forest stewardship potential on critical private forestlands mask ............................ 17
3. Forest stewardship potential on critical private non-forestlands .............................. 17
4. Forest resource richness and forest resource threats................................................. 18
Weighting.................................................................................................................................. 18
Overlay Analysis....................................................................................................................... 19
Final Classification ................................................................................................................... 23
Analysis Results........................................................................................................................ 25
Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 34
Appendix A: Final Maps.......................................................................................................... 34
Appendix B: Documentation and Metadata............................................................................. 35
2
Executive Summary
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) conducted an assessment
of critical private forestland in Montana in 2006. This state-wide assessment was accomplished
using geographic information system (GIS) analytic techniques and involved developing three
spatial layers—Forest Resource Richness, Forest Resource Threat, and Critical Private
Forestland. Results of the analysis will be used to direct the future education and technical
assistance activities and may be used to demonstrate the value of forests and forestry on the
regional economy, environmental health, and quality of life. This analysis provides insight
where future stewardship education and technical assistance opportunities may be most
beneficial. It also captures where past activity (i.e. forest Stewardship management plans) has
occurred. The project began in July, 2006, and ended in November, with approval by the
Montana Forest Stewardship Steering Committee (MFSSC). A subcommittee of this group met
several times with the consultant and DNRC staff and made final adjustments in the model
weighting and evaluated results throughout the state.
Montana has significant public land acres, primarily in larger contiguous blocks of National
Forests in Western Montana, and in some blocks, but primarily scattered sections of Bureau of
Land Management lands in Eastern Montana. Approximately 20 percent of the total acreage in
Montana is west of the Continental Divide and 80 percent is east of the divide. This geographic
split, coupled with the predominant pattern of public lands and industrial forest lands (which
were excluded from this analysis) had a large influence on the acreage distribution of the ordinal
classification (high, medium and low stewardship potential) applied to Montana SAP. Non
forested lands that were still judged as having stewardship potential on critical private lands
dominated the total acreage of analysis.
“Stewardship potential” in Montana is defined by NIPF acreage that is prioritized for education
and technical assistance. The final results for critical forest stewardship potential on critical
private lands indicated there were slightly more than 25 million acres of stewardship potential in
Montana, with approximately 2.7 million acres holding high potential. About 21 million acres
were low potential, primarily currently non-forested lands east of the Continental Divide.
Slightly more than 1 million acres of lands with stewardship potential were on currently nonforested lands. In public land survey sections of land with existing stewardship plans on nonindustrial forest ownership parcels, 204,553 acres were on high potential areas, and 407,174
were on low potential lands.
Certain areas of Montana forests are undergoing rapid change due primarily to population
growth and subsequent expansion from development. This is resulting in a fragmentation of both
our forests and forest management potential, which together are weakening the state’s
competitiveness in the regional and global marketplace.
In addition, it is increasingly difficult to promote sound forest management as non-industrial
private forest (NIPF) landowners are steadily increasing in number and their individual
ownership parcel size are becoming smaller. This challenge is exacerbated by weak funding,
shifting priorities, and greater demands for accountability. Key stakeholders, forest resources,
and threats to the resource vary across the state. Because of this variation, information designed
to portray the region must be developed with an understanding of the differing pressures within
Page 2
the region. DNRC does not have a source of information that adequately shows the pattern and
distribution of critical forestland. This Assessment provides this understanding and a strong
foundation for better forest management decisions. The consumers of the Assessment include
DNRC state forestry agencies staff, and USDA Forest Service (USFS) regional and national
programs.
The Assessment results in GIS layers and maps showing forest resource richness and threat on a
State-wide basis, with enough detail that sub-county assessments are meaningful. The merging of
resource richness and resource threat show the distribution of critical (or priority) forestland.
Not only do the results of the analysis provide a new way to describe the region’s distinctiveness,
they can be used to inform policy makers, stakeholders and concerned groups, as well as
empower the region to communicate its distinctiveness and better quantify its management
challenges. Knowing where the forest resources are, where they are most vulnerable, and where
they are most valuable will be indispensable as the DNRC positions itself as the lead stakeholder
of forestry issues in the region.
The Assessment can help meet the challenge of diminishing funds and increasing customer base
by facilitating strategic outreach. Because there is limited capacity to promote forest
management to landowners, it is more effective to focus energy in places where it will provide
the highest return. In addition, as Montana develops its strategy for market competitiveness, it
will need to know where the opportunities lie to sustain its most valuable and lucrative assets.
The state-wide Assessment will be invaluable for the DNRC as it strives to sustain healthy,
productive forests, and protect the economic viability of its private forests.
The Assessment analyzes where best to focus forest management resources, and therefore is a
perfect complement to the Montana Wildfire Risk Assessment (MWRA), whose output will help
focus fire suppression, prevention, and mitigation resources. These two data sets together will
empower the region to market its identity more comprehensively.
The resulting output will be useful and relevant at many spatial scales, from regional down to
sub-county. As a result, the model outputs will help Montana address critical resource
management issues within each state, be it with state and county policy makers or as a tool for
agency foresters.
A GIS modeling methodology has already been developed to identify resource richness and
resource threat on non-industrial private forestland as part of the Spatial Analysis Project (SAP)
of the Forest Stewardship Program. The USFS developed the SAP model primarily to address
the efficacy of Forest Stewardship Plans and to promote strategic program delivery. DNRC
recognizes additional benefits beyond meeting the standard goals of the project. Spatial analysis
can assist states in managing their Private Forest Programs and can help as an analytical tool
when addressing forest policy issues. A national objective was to have a country wide analysis
completed state by state. Participating states are being asked to use a given set of 11 data layer
themes and to follow an establish set of procedures and standards for displaying results. States
have the freedom to add additional GIS data layers needed to describe local conditions, and
to weight each data layer to best reflect is level of importance. Montana used one additional
layer “Forest Productivity.” The standard data layers themes include: Riparian Corridors, Forest
Patches, Public Water Supply Areas, Priority Watersheds, Threatened & Endangered
Page 3
Species, Proximity to Public Forestlands, Wetlands, Topographic, Wildfire Risk, Insect
and Disease Risks, and Development Risk.
Montana DNRC worked with the MFSSC in establishing weighting factors for each data layer.
These data layers and weighting factors focus on NIPF issues. The analysis provides a priority
value for each 30 meter by 30 meter piece of non-industrial private forest land across the state.
These cells were then grouped into high, medium, or low categories. The Montana weighting
strategy included differences from the National model, and differences with other states that have
completed their SAP analysis. Tree farms, for instance were considered in Colorado, but were
not applied in Montana.
Page 4
Stewardship Analysis Project (SAP) Introduction, Purpose & Background
USDA-Forest Service and state forestry agencies have a long standing partnership that began in
the late 1940s promoting the protection and improvement of private forestland. Current efforts
are defined in the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 and create the Forest Stewardship
Program (FSP) of 1990 as the primary tool for assisting family and other non-industrial forest
landowners. The focus of this Spatial Analysis project is to assist the Forest Service and state
forestry agencies in the administering and monitoring of FSP. Montana DNRC fully supports a
national spatial analysis effort.
The FSP has been very successful as a national program in promoting sustainable forest
management. Comparing today’s national and state strategies for assisting NIPF landowners
with those of 1990 when FSP was first introduced clearly demonstrates the evolution of the
program. Multi-resource management planning is now an accepted standard. It is by far the
exception, that timber production is the primary goal when considering forest planning. Efforts
such as spatial analysis strengthen the FSP and other assistance efforts, and benefit
landowners, states, and the nation.
NIPF landowners are defined as private individuals, group association, corporation, Indian tribe
or other private legal entity. These lands may have existing forest cover or may be suitable for
growing trees. Forestland was identified using the National Land Cover Database (NLCD)
The USDA-Forest Service Northeast Area, in partnership with four state forestry
agencies, developed a GIS process for mapping lands eligible for the FSP, prioritizing
them, and overlaying these lands with existing forest stewardship plans. After these four states
completed their spatial analysis project in 2003-2004, the Forest Service offered incentive grants
to several Western states in order to complete spatial analysis projects. In 2005 Montana
received a grant to initiate the analysis on a statewide basis.
The Initial scoping of the SAP process was coordinated through the Montana Forest Stewardship
Steering Committee (MFSSC). For the purpose of this exercise, Forest Stewardship potential
was defined as NIPF acreage that would benefit most from education and technical assistance.
Through a series of work sessions, 13 overall data sets were selected and individually evaluated
for their specific application to the Montana SAP. At several milestones in the analysis process,
the group reconvened to assess whether the process was heading in the correct direction. During
these discussions there were several modifications made to data set structure and its relation to
the overall project. Each of these modifications are covered in individual data set summaries.
SAP Implementation
The SAP will provide Montana with the ability to track and display FSP activities over a
statewide landscape now and in the future. Through continual GIS analysis, resource data
dealing with multiple issues can be mapped and planned. The Montana FSP will benefit from
knowing more about the actual location of stewardship plans across the landscape, and identify
potential opportunities where individual landowner planning can address key larger scale
resource needs. SAP will also assist regional and national FSP managers to address program
effectiveness and public funds accountability.
Page 5
The FSP Spatial Analysis Project (SAP) is an effort to provide a consistent methodology
across the country to evaluate and prioritize natural resource issues, and at the same time offer
states the ability to customize collection and analysis of pertinent spatial data. The analysis will
provide insight into:
• Important forest lands (rich in natural resources, vulnerable to threat, or both);
• Existing stewardship tracts (properties under management plans); and
• Areas of opportunity to focus future FSP efforts (stewardship potential).
Montana’s SAP will also address the following questions, as they relate to the FSP:
• Where are the state’s NIPF lands?
• Where are the management plans?
• Where are the state’s priority NIPFs (those lands of highest potential to benefit from
active forest management)?
• What percentage of existing NIPF management plans are on the state’s priority
family forest lands?
• Are there opportunities to implement forestry education or technical assistance to
increase forest management activities in high priority areas?
With additional GIS data layers, spatial analyses can also be used to:
• Assess program effectiveness in serving state-identified critical resource
management needs.
• Relate factors such as completed cost/share practices, landowner activities, and
monitoring data to help determine program strategies and effectiveness.
• Establish future practices that can improve effectiveness in addressing priority needs
based on landscape scale resource issues.
• Determine the economic, environmental and social importance of NIPFs.
• Provide additional information and clarity when addressing a broad range of forest
policy issues.
There are three primary directions that will evolve out of Montana’s SAP.
• Development of a historic management plan database and associated geo-referenced
map of existing forest stewardship plans. We would like to see statewide Tree Farm plans and
conservation easements integrated in the future.
• Assessment of how the state can use the results of these analyses to guide future
landowner assistance activities in conjunction with other NIPF programs.
• Recommendations for modifying the future spatial analysis efforts to evolve with the current
FSP.
Page 6
Stewardship Potential Suitability Analysis
The state-wide stewardship suitability analysis is comprised of thirteen common data layers, and
an analysis mask. The layers are divided into four categories: forest resource richness, forest
resource threats, critical private forest and non-forest land with stewardship potential, and
analysis masks.
Forest Resource Richness
• Private forestland
• Forest patches
• Riparian river areas
• Wetlands
• Slope
• Proximity to public lands
• Priority watersheds
• Public water supply
• Threatened and Endangered Species
• Forest Productivity
Forest Resource Threat
• Wildfire risk
• Forest health (Insects and diseases)
• Development level
Critical Private Forestland (all input layers)
• Private forestland
• Forest patches
• Riparian river areas
• Wetlands
• Slope
• Proximity to public lands
• Priority watersheds
• Public water supply
• Threatened and Endangered Species
• Forest Productivity
• Wildfire risk
• Forest health (Insects and diseases)
• Development level
Analysis Masks
• Forest and non-forest land cover
• Public land, private lands and large corporate forest land
Page 7
Data Layer Development
The thirteen data layers used for this analysis are described in the following section. The
weighting scheme for the layers is shown in Figure 1. Twelve of these layers were mandated by
the federal SAP requirements. The 13th layer was added within the SAP flexibility scope, to
localize the process for Montana. The MFFSC SAP subcommittee ranked the 13 layers based on
relative importance for delivering stewardship education and technical assistance.
Figure 1 SAP Data Layers with Weighting
Forest Resource Richness
1.
Private Forestland
The private forestland layer was created by
combining forest cover with private lands in
Montana, as described in detail in the Analysis
Masks section of the report. The forest stewardship
potential on critical private lands mask was the
source for this map layer.
The forest cover used in this project was extracted
from the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD). The
1992 NLCD was derived from early to mid-1990s Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper satellite data and
is a 21-class land cover classification scheme applied consistently over the United States. The
spatial resolution of the data is 30 meters. NLCD is provided on a state-wide basis. Based on
input from the MFSSC subcommittee, the NLCD shrub layer was excluded from the forest
classification, unlike the approach that Colorado took in their SAP program.
Page 8
The forest cover layer was derived by combining four NLCD classes:
• Deciduous Forest
• Evergreen Forest
• Mixed Forest
• Woody Wetland
Private lands were derived from the Montana stewardship layers provided by two state agencies,
and supplemental corporate forest land ownership provided by DNRC, as described in detail in
the Analysis Masks section of the report.
The final input grid included a grid value of 1 for private forestland and a 0 for all public and
large corporate lands, with a weighted overlay value of 15 percent.
2. Forest Patches
The forest patches layer was derived from the private
forestland layer and the state-wide road grid. The goal
of the forest patches layer was to determine a minimum
patch size and place emphasis on management of these
areas. Roads create discontinuities in forest cover and
reduce forest patch size for some wildlife species.
The latest Montana Department of Administration
Information Technology Services Division (ITSD)
transportation framework dataset was used for road delineation. This is the best compendium of
roads and transportation infrastructure in the state, and represents the best available sources from
the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), local counties, Census Tiger files, and the
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) road networks. All road classes in the statewide transportation layer
were used in the development of this layer.
A road grid, with 30 meter cell size, was created directly from the vector road features in the
transportation framework dataset. The road grid was then used as a mask to cut out the forest
areas from the private forestland layer. This resulted in a forest patches layer of areas equal to or
greater than 100 acres.
Initial specifications set up by the planning committee called for roads to be buffered by type:
100 feet for interstates, 55 feet for state and federal highways, and 38 feet for all other roads.
But, because the analysis layers were 30 meter cell grids, it was impossible to use the desired
buffers. Buffering the linear roads and then creating grids from the buffer polygons, created
undesired breaks in the road corridor continuity. Also, it was impossible to exactly replicate 38
ft., 55 ft., or 100 ft. buffer polygons with 30 meter cells. However, creating a road grid with 30
meter cell size directly from the vector road features maintained the continuity of road corridors
and approximated a buffer zone along the roads. The grid representation of a linear feature (i.e.
roads) resulted in buffer zones ranging from about 0 to over 120 feet on one side of the linear
element, but continuity was maintained when using the FOUR option with the ESRI regiongroup
routine. Using FOUR prevented cells that only have adjacent corners from being assigned to the
same group, so it did not connect forest patches on opposite sides of a road.
Page 9
Final input grid included a grid value of 1 for forest patches and a 0 for all other areas, with a
weighted overlay value of 7 percent.
3. Riparian River Areas
Riparian river areas were identified in the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) National Hydrography
Dataset (NHD). All perennial streams and major rivers
in the NHD were buffered by 300 feet on each side.
Some stream segments that were coded perennial (such
as portions of the Clark Fork River) are composed of
network connectivity lines overlaying polygons in the
NHD water bodies. These lines assist in maintaining
connectivity of the stream routes through those water bodies. These segments that pass through
lakes were removed from the perennial stream data. The resulting perennial streams and rivers
were buffered by 300 feet, and converted to a grid with grid value = 1 for riparian corridors and 0
or non-riparian areas.
The final input grid included a grid value of 1 for riparian areas and a 0 for all non-riparian lands,
with a weighted overlay value of 6 percent.
4. Wetlands
Wetlands were identified in the National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) data maintained by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). The inventory has only
been completed for a portion of Montana. For areas
not covered by NWI, the wetlands data from NLCD
was used. The features in the NWI were split into
riparian and wetlands, and only the wetlands classes
were merged, forming this layer (the riparian codes
PSSA, PSSB, PSSC, PUSA, PUBG and PUSC were excluded from this layer).
The final input grid included a grid value of 1 for wetlands and a 0 for all other lands, with a
weighted overlay value of 3 percent.
5. Slope
The slope layer was used to highlight ease of
operability for forest harvesting operations, which
contribute to productive forests more likely to
remain forest. Similarly, this layer can be used as an
indicator of the site’s erodibility. The statewide 30meter digital elevation models (DEM) from the
Montana State Library Natural Resources
Information System (NRIS) was used to develop a
Page 10
topographic slope layer with slopes classified into those ranging from 0 – 40 percent. The
forest stewardship potential on critical private forestlands mask was used to select only slope
values for the areas that fall within private forest lands.
The final input grid included a grid value of 1 for all lands with slope less than 40 percent on
private forestland and a 0 for all other lands, with a weighted overlay value of 3 percent.
6. Proximity to Public Lands
The proximity to public lands layer was created by
combining a ½ mile buffer of public lands of those
public lands that were at least 10 percent forested
(based on the NLCD forest cover layer). The public
lands layer was developed as described in detail in the
Analysis Masks section of the report.
The final input grid included a grid value of 1 for all
lands in proximity to forested public lands and a 0 for
all other lands, with a weighted overlay value of 8 percent.
7. Priority Watersheds
The priority watersheds layer was derived from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data
on impaired water locations. These data are based on
the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) lists that show
water quality standards impairment or threats to the
attainment of beneficial uses or anti-degradation
provisions. The 303(d) list includes five categories:
•
•
•
•
•
Category 1: Waters for which all applicable
beneficial uses have been assessed and all uses
are determined to be fully supported.
Category 2: Waters for which those beneficial uses that have been assessed are fully supported,
but some applicable uses have not been assessed.
Category 3: Waters for which there is insufficient data to assess the use support of any applicable
beneficial use, so no use support determinations have been made.
Category 4: Waters where one or more beneficial uses have been assessed as being impaired,
fully supporting but threatened, all TMDLs are completed but impaired beneficial uses have not
yet achieved fully supporting status, or impaired and TMDLs are not required:
Category 5: Waters where one or more applicable beneficial uses have been assessed as being
impaired or threatened, and a TMDL is required to address the factors causing the impairment or
threat.
Category 4 or 5 water features were selected as the map source for priority watersheds for the
SAP process. The 6th code watershed units (HUC) with an impaired water location were
selected as the unit of analysis. These two layers were intersected and the 6th code watersheds
with category 4 or 5 impaired waters were selected as priority watersheds.
Page 11
Both the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Montana Water Quality Act require an ongoing
program of water quality assessments and reporting as part of a process intended to protect and
improve the quality of rivers, streams, and lakes in the state. The 2006 database update was not yet
completed when this SAP analysis was conducted. As a result the data is based on 2004 data, the latest
available data set.
Final input grid included a grid value of 1 for priority watersheds and a 0 all other watersheds,
with a weighted overlay value of 7 percent.
8. Public Water Supply
The public water supply layer included community
surface water intake locations, from the Source Water
Protection database maintained by the Source Water
Protection Program of the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ). The 5th code watershed
HUCs with a community surface water intake location
were selected based on an overlay of the intake points
on the GIS watershed layer. Any watershed polygon
that had one or more intakes, regardless of type of intake or vulnerability, was selected. This
database was maintained to help the Source Water Protection Program track the status and
progress in completing Source Water Delineation and Assessment Reports (SWDARs) for every
active public water supply in Montana. The GIS layer consists of one or more points for each
public water supply that represent spring, well, or surface water intake locations.
Release of this layer to the general public directly or through other agencies or entities was not
authorized by DEQ. The data was generalized to broad watershed delineations and the original
point locations cannot be identified.
The final input grid included a grid value of 1 for watersheds including public water intake
locations a 0 for all other watersheds, with a weighted overlay value of 5 percent.
9. Threatened and Endangered Species
Data for the threatened and endangered species layer
was obtained from the University of Montana Natural
Heritage Program. The information provided by
MTNHP is intended for distribution or use only within
the requesting department, agency, or business. A
generalized composite summary was created of all the
data from MTNHP for threatened and endangered
species. It cannot be reversed engineered to identify
individual species locations.
The final input grid included a grid value of 1 for threatened and endangered species and a 0 for
all public and large corporate lands, with a weighted overlay value of 3 percent.
Page 12
10. Forest Productivity
Several alternatives were considered as the source for
forest productivity.
• Landfire rapid assessment potential natural
vegetation, representing the vegetation that
could be supported on a given site based on the
biophysical environment and absent any
disturbance. This layer was available for all of
Montana, but was designed for national to
regional levels of analysis. The Landfire
landscape level data was only available for
Western Montana.
• SSURGO soils site index, the NRCS 1:24,000 scale detailed mapping included site index
information for forest species. This data was used in the Oregon SAP analysis. The
SSURGO is almost completed for most of Montana, but in our analysis, the site index
values were sporadic in coverage, and appeared to be limited to western Montana. The
pilot areas in eastern Montana had null values. We were unable to locate any detailed
metadata or explanations in the literature. Dr. Fieldler observed that the site index values
listed appeared on the low end in the pilot areas.
• US Forest Service Region 1 Vegetation Mapping Project (-VMAP). This layer is the best
source for detailed vegetation mapping for lifeform, tree canopy cover class, tree
diameter, and dominance type. The data set, however, only covers the western portion of
Montana.
• University of Montana and Montana Department of Revenue potential forest productivity
(see below).
After review of the different alternatives using three sample pilot areas in the Flathead, Missoula,
and Bull Mountain areas, and expert opinion from Dr Carl Fiedler at the University of Montana,
the preferred data source for identifying forest productivity classes was determined to be the
University of Montana/Montana Department of Revenue potential forest productivity layer.
Although there were limitations of the data and model, it was complete for all of Montana and
the SAP area of interest, and was judged to be a more accurate source of forest productivity than
the SSURGO data.
The UM model, developed by the Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group at the University
of Montana predicted and mapped potential forest productivity (cubic volume increment at
culmination of mean annual increment, CMAI) for all forest land in the state of Montana. The
biophysical modeling logic that was used to estimate productivity of forested landscapes
primarily used the model Forest-BGC and its progeny Biome-BGC, Tree-BGC, and Fire-BGC.
In the BGC (Bio-Geo Chemical) logic, basic growth processes (photosynthesis, transpiration,
respiration and carbon allocation are driven directly by climatic events: daily precipitation, solar
radiation relative humidity, precipitation and maximum and minimum temperature). The models
were combined along with a hill slope hydrologic routing model, TOPMODEL, in a GIS
environment for use in calculating ecosystem flux rates at spatial scales ranging from hill slope
to regional resolutions. The combined set of models results in a regional hydro-ecological
simulation system (RHESSys). The only derivative available from this project is the final
Page 13
potential forest productivity layer for existing forest lands, derived from Landsat imagery in the
1991. This was the layer used in this analysis.
The method used by Department of Revenue for forest valuation in Montana is currently in
revision, and will be replaced in 2007-2008. The new methodology uses a stratified sample of
site index conditions based on extensive field plots. It will be beneficial to re-run the SAP
analysis once these new data are made available in 2008.
The following productivity classes were used. The non forestland, hardwood stands
(cottonwood and aspen), and Department of Revenue defined non-commercial lands (which were
lands with less than 15 acres of contiguous forest land) were given a value of 0 and defined as
non-forest.
Description
Class 4: 25 – 45 cu ft/ac/yr
Class 5: 45 – 65 cu ft/ac/yr
Class 6: 65 – 85 cu ft/ac/yr
Class 7: 85+ cu ft/ac/yr
Grid value / weighted overlay value
3
6
12
13
Forest Resource Threats
1. Wildfire Risk
The wildfire risk layer used the rapid assessment fire
regime condition classes from the National Landfire
Program. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment fire
regime condition classes (FRCC) delineate a
standardized, interagency index to measure the
departure of current conditions from reference
conditions. FRCC is defined as a relative measure
describing the degree of departure from the
reference fire regime. This departure results in
changes to one (or more) of the following ecological components: vegetation characteristics
(species composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel
composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances (such as
insect and disease mortality, grazing, and drought). FRCC is composed of three classes:
1. FRCC 1 - Within the natural (historical) range of variability ("reference fire regime") of
vegetation characteristics; fuel composition; fire frequency, severity and pattern; and
other associated disturbances
2. FRCC 2 - Moderate departure from the reference fire regime of vegetation
characteristics; fuel composition; fire frequency, severity and pattern; and other
associated disturbances
3. FRCC 3 - High departure from the reference fire regime of vegetation characteristics;
fuel composition; fire frequency, severity and pattern; and other associated disturbances
Page 14
Fire regime condition classes 2 and 3 were selected for this analysis. Those areas in condition
class 2 and 3 were masked to only include the private forest lands, based on the private forest
lands mask described in section 1. All areas in the two wildfire condition classes and on private
forest land were given a grid value rating of 1, and all other areas a value of 0. This layer was
weighted by a value of 11 percent.
The more detailed landscape level Landfire data would have been preferable as a data source, but
it was only available for the area west of the continental divide in Montana. The SAP analysis
should be rerun with the landscape level Landfire data for the whole state when it is available (by
2009).
The final input grid included a grid value of 1 for all areas defined with wildfire risk and a 0 for
all other lands, with a weighted overlay value of 11 percent.
2. Forest Health (Insects and Diseases)
Data from the forest health risk mapping efforts by the
USFS was mapped from 2000 to 2005. Data was
originally acquired from the USFS aerial surveys
covering multiple years and insect and disease species.
This group of layers contains ten individual layers
representing the results of annual insect and disease
aerial detection survey flights in USDA Forest Service
- Region 1 from 2000 to 2005. These surveys cover a
large part of the forested areas, including Federal,
State, and Tribal lands in Region 1. The layers represent the actual aerial detection surveys, and
also the areas that were flown and not flown. The surveys were conducted by the Forest Health
Protection Group in the State and Private Forestry Staff, Region 1. Region 1 is within the
perimeters of northeastern Washington, northern Idaho, and Montana; and a national grassland in
North Dakota and northwestern South Dakota. The purpose of an aerial detection survey was to
detect new outbreaks or identify previously undetected outbreaks of forest pests, monitor
existing outbreaks, provide timely information for management planning, and provide
information for forest health assessments and project plans.
The selected data for the health layer in this SAP analysis consisted of the aerial detection survey
flown in 2005 including Douglas-fir beetle, Engelmann Spruce beetle, Mountain Pine beetle, Fir
engraver, Western Balsam bark beetle, Spruce budworm, White Pine blister rust, and dwarf
mistletoe. Dan Rogers, DNRC SAP coordinator, discussed this layer with forest entomologists
and selected the six species to be used in the analysis and determined that only the data from the
most recent year would be used in SAP analysis.
The final input grid included a grid value of 1 for presence of selected insects and diseases and a
0 for all other lands, with a weighted overlay value of 11 percent.
Page 15
3. Development Level
Development level was identified as those areas
forecasted to have development of greater than five
homes per quarter section by the year 2025. The
analysis was conducted by the Sonoran Institute to
examine future residential development in 31 of
Montana’s counties, where the majority of the
stewardship plans have been completed (Beaverhead,
Big Horn, Broadwater, Carbon, Cascade, Deer Lodge,
Flathead, Gallatin, Glacier, Granite, Jefferson, Lake,
Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Lincoln, Madison, Meagher, Mineral, Missoula, Park, Pondera,
Powell, Ravalli, Sanders, Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Toole, Treasure, and
Yellowstone). Census block groups were analyzed from the 2000 Census data to determine if
there were any additional areas of Montana with increases in residential development predicted
in the future. The remaining counties not included in the Sonoran study all showed declining
residential growth, so no additional analysis was required in the remaining 25 counties.
The Sonoran dataset includes homes within subdivisions but excludes mobile homes, for which
historical location information was not available. The historical data were collected from the
Montana Departments of Revenue, and were summarized per Quarter Section according to the
Public Land Survey System (PLSS). The tax assessor data are current through 2005. Forecasts
of residential development were for 2025. This dataset describes the forecasted locations of
homes within subdivisions but excludes mobile homes, for which historical location information
was not available. Fifty-five potential explanatory variables were used to analyze the correlates
of growth from 1995-2005. These variables describe the study area with respect to natural
resources, transportation, services, natural amenities, and past home development, and are
consistent with the bio-physical and socio-economic factors identified in the growing body of
literature investigating the drivers of human settlement patterns. Examples include suitability for
agriculture, travel time to airports, and travel time to national parks.
Data was used with the permission of the Sonoran Institute. The information provided was
intended for distribution or use only within the requesting department, agency, or business, and
should not be distributed to the public or used for other purposes.
Final input grid included a grid value of 1 for private quarter sections projected to have 5 or more
residences by 2025 and a 0 for all other lands, with a weighted overlay value of 8 percent.
Analysis Masks
Several analysis masks were developed for this project. They were used to exclude geographic
areas in the analysis, and to define the geographic areas used in final acreage calculations for
different categories and classifications of land. The original statement of work stated that “The
analysis mask for the Forest Resource Richness and Forest Resource Threat layers will include
only open water. The analysis mask for the Critical Private Forestland layer will include urban
areas, public land, and open water. For urban areas and open water, NLCD data will be used.”
The original mask definition in the statement of work was modified by DNRC staff and the
subcommittee during the review process, and the final analysis masks were developed as
follows:
Page 16
1. Forest stewardship potential on critical private lands
Excluded areas are public lands and industrial forest company lands, and specific land cover
classifications from the NLCD database defined in the project scope of work. The NLCD
exclusions included open water, quarries, bare rock and sand, perennial ice and snow, and
industrial/urban areas as identified by NLCD (values = 11, 12, 21, 22, 23, 31, and 32).
The land ownership source for the classified forest stewardship potential on critical private lands
mask layer was initially extracted from the Information Technology Service Division (ITSD),
Montana Department of Administration stewardship geodatabase. This layer was selected as the
base for the public/private lands layer in Montana, even though there were gaps in the statewide
geodatabase, which was acquired as a work in progress. Gaps in the layer, which primarily
occurred in the Flathead Valley and other small portions of western Montana, were filled in with
ownership information from the Montana Natural Resource Information System (NRIS)
stewardship layer. The rationale for using the ITSD layer was its role as the basis for the
Montana cadastral database, and a greater likelihood of maintenance in a timely fashion in the
future. It also provided the ability for a closer match to stewardship plan maps. The cadastral
was based on BLM Geographic Coordinates database (GCDB). Due to different survey control,
this layer can have different ownership lines than the NRIS layer, which is based on 1:100,000
scale corners from USGS quadrangle maps. As a result some slivers were created in the merging
process of filling the gaps with the NRIS version of stewardship. Once the public land
composite was created, large corporate timber lands, derived from the Plum Creek timber
company lands from the stewardship layer, were subsequently merged with the public/private
land, and lumped into the “public” category. The same operation was applied to the separate
GIS files of other large private timber companies provided by DNRC. This composite resulted
in two final mutually exclusive layers used in the analysis, defining all the “public” (public and
large corporate forest ownership) and private lands in Montana potentially available for
stewardship. The private land mask was subsequently used in all operations, maps and acreage
summaries requiring the classified forest stewardship potential on critical private lands mask.
2. Forest stewardship potential on critical private forestlands mask
The forest stewardship potential on critical private lands mask layer, described in the previous
section was subsequently overlaid on the existing forestland and forest cover grid to subdivide it
into two components, those currently forested and those currently non-forested. The forest cover
layer was derived by combining four NLCD classes: deciduous forest, evergreen forest, mixed
forest and woody wetlands. The intersection of these two layers including the forest stewardship
potential on critical private lands mask layer, and the existing forest layer from NLCD became
the forest stewardship potential on critical private forestlands mask.
3. Forest stewardship potential on critical private non-forestlands
This project identified all non-corporate forest private lands as critical to forest stewardship. The
forest planning and management of agroforestry applications is part of the national Stewardship
Program, but was not applied in Montana. The state's existing forest policies focus on
maintaining and improving existing forest lands. Montana has a strong agricultural economic
and social base, and converting farm lands to forestland is not an objective of the Montana SAP.
Page 17
The derivation of this layer included all lands in the forest stewardship potential on critical
private lands mask layer that were not included in the stewardship potential on critical private
forestlands mask along with the areas of development and projected development, defined by the
development layer, were also removed. The private forestlands mask and the private nonforestlands mask layers are mutually exclusive.
4. Forest resource richness and forest resource threats
The DNRC staff and subcommittee modified the mask criteria for resource richness and resource
threats to only include those lands within the forest stewardship potential on critical private lands
mask layer, instead of the original, less exclusive criteria of all lands except open water.
Weighting
To produce the composite layers, each input layer was given a weight according to their relative
importance. The MFCCS committee derived the weighting scheme for the individual suitability
layers based on relative importance for delivering stewardship education and technical
assistance. Once all data layers were assigned a percentage, the percentages were converted to
weighting values, that is 10 percent became a value of 10 and the sum of the maximum points for
all 13 layers equaled 100. With the exception of the forest productivity, which included variable
points based on the productivity category, all of the other layers were binary presence/absence
map layers and cored the full weighted score for the layer for map areas mapped present and
scored 0 for areas mapped as absent.
As Oregon noted in their assessment, adding additional layers to the analysis reduced the
sensitivity of weighting. A total of 64 percent of the weighting criteria in Montana relied on or
were influenced by existing forest cover. With the geographic distribution of lands and the
ordinal measurement scale, any layer that had broad spatial distribution in eastern Montana (such
as the operability criteria of slopes less than 40 percent) initially gave a given unit of analysis
some score greater than 0. After the MFCCS subcommittee reviewed the results of the
preliminary mapping they revised the analysis methodology and applied additional forest related
pre-condition criteria to the wildfire risk, slope, and proximity to public lands layers.
Data layer weights:
• Private forestland
• Forest productivity
o Class 4: 3%
o Class 5: 6%
o Class 6: 12%
o Class 7: 13%
• Forest health (Insects and diseases)
• Wildfire risk
• Development level
• Proximity to public lands
• Forest patches
• Priority watersheds
• Riparian river areas
• Public water supply
Page 18
15%
13% maximum
11%
11%
8%
8%
7%
7%
6%
5%
•
•
•
Threatened and Endangered Species
Slope
Wetlands
3%
3%
3%
Overlay Analysis
The GIS data representing each of the layers was converted to the ESRI grid format with a cell
size of 30 meters, an area representing approximately one-quarter acre. Each cell of the grid for
each factor was converted to a value of either 0 or 1 (except for forest productivity). For
example, all the 30-meter grid cells that fall within the riparian river buffers were coded as “1,”
while all cells outside the riparian buffers were coded as “0” in that layer. Each grid cell was
multiplied by its weighted value, so that cells coded as “1” took on the weighted value while all
“0” cells retained a value of 0. The final result grid contained cells whose values equaled the sum
of the values in the same location (on the same quarter-acre) from all included layers in each
composite layer.
The ESRI Spatial Analyst extension allowed for the specification of an analysis mask. The
analysis mask described above was used to exclude areas that did not meet eligibility
requirements for inclusion in the Forest Stewardship Program.
The ESRI Modelbuilder functionality was used to model and run each of the analysis steps in
compiling the SAP overlay analysis. Three models were developed. These are shown in
figures Figure 2 to Figure 4. Full documentation and GIS metadata are provided in Appendix B.
Page 19
Figure 2 SAP Model Overlay Analysis
Page 20
Figure 3 Resource Richness Overlay
Page 21
Figure 4 Threats Analysis Overlay
Page 22
Final Classification
The forest stewardship potential on critical private lands and the two subcategories of private
lands, forestlands and non-forestlands & non-developed lands, were subsequently classified into
three categories of potential stewardship for each output layer: high, medium and low. The
classification breaks were determined by the model input scoring matrix and thresholds set by
the MFSSC subcommittee, using the following rules:
The classification was derived from the final rounded integer value for the sum of grid layers
used in the “Classified forest stewardship potential on critical private lands” layer (grid cells in a
30 meter x 30 meter unit of analysis).
High - Those that had a value greater than or
equal to 39, the sum of the highest three map
layers scores.
Page 23
Medium – Those that had a value less than 39,
the sum of the highest three map layers scores
AND had a score greater or equal to 32, the
sum of the remaining layers not in the top 3,
but with forest related influence in the model.
Low – Those that had a value less than 32,
with no forest related influence in the model
Page 24
Analysis Results
Montana forest ownership is shown in Figure 5. The majority of forest land is on US Forest
Service land, comprising 59 percent, and corporate forest land accounts for 5 percent of the total.
Approximately 19 percent of the forest land is in the non-industrial private forest land category
which was the primary focus of this analysis. Parcels in this category range from less than 1 acre
to thousands of acres. The Montana Department of Revenue tracks private forest land for forest
valuation for acreage of forest land greater than or equal to 15 acres. Stewardship plans,
however, can be prepared for forest lands with forest areas of 5 acres or greater. The fine scale
of this analysis (30 x 30 meter units of resolution) will allow the DNRC and Forest Extension to
evaluate stewardship potential on any size forest acreage in Montana.
Figure 5 Montana Forest Ownership
Page 25
Figure 6 Classified Forest Stewardship Potential on Critical Private Lands
Table 1 Classified Forest Stewardship Potential on Critical Private Lands
The classified forest stewardship potential on critical private lands is composed of 12 percent in
the high category, 3 percent in the medium category, and 84 percent in the low category, as
shown in Figure 6 and Table 1. Of a total of more than 25 million acres, approximately 5
million acres are forestlands and approximately 19 million acres are non-forestlands and nondeveloped lands. About 3 million acres of forestlands were rated in the high potential category
and about 900 acres of non-forestlands and non-developed lands were rated high. Almost all of
the non-forestlands and non-developed lands were rated with low potential.
Page 26
Table 2 Classified Forest Stewardship Potential on Critical Private Forestlands
As reflected in Table 2, of a total of about 5 million acres of currently forested land, about 3
million acres of forestlands were rated in the high potential category, about 800,000 acres were
rated in the medium potential category, and about 1 million acres were rated in the low potential
category. About 8 percent of high potential forest land, 4 percent of medium and 6 percent of
low is currently under stewardship management plans. In general, a larger proportion of the
acreage rated high was located in western Montana and a larger proportion of acreage rated low
was in eastern Montana.
Page 27
Figure 7 Classified Forest Stewardship Potential on Critical Private Non-Forestlands &
Non-Developed Lands
Table 3 Classified Forest Stewardship Potential on Critical Private Non-Forestlands & Non-Developed
Lands
The classified forest stewardship potential on critical private non-forestlands and non-developed lands is
composed almost entirely of the low category of potential, as shown in Figure 7 and
Table 3. Of a total of more than 25 million acres, approximately 5 million acres are forestlands
and approximately 19 million acres are non-forestlands and non-developed lands. About 3
million acres of forestlands were rated in the high potential category and about 900 acres of nonforestlands and non-developed lands were rated high. Almost all of the non-forestlands and nondeveloped lands were rated with low potential.
Page 28
Figure 8 Resource Richness
Results of the map layer combinations for resource richness and resource threats were also
summarized based on the rating criteria for classified forest stewardship potential on critical
private lands, and the results are shown inFigure 8 and Figure 9.
The Resource Richness grid is the final output of the SAP Resource Richness model. A subset
of the data themes comprising the Forest Stewardship Potential Analysis model (SAP_model)
were added together on a cell-by-cell basis to derive a richness score. The logic for weighting
factors used in the SAP_model could not be used for the resource richness, since the total list of
layers was separated into two categories. Therefore the Jenks method or “Natural Breaks”
classification method in the ESRI ArcView software was used to derive the resource richness
categories of High, Med, or Low. The natural breaks thresholds divide the classification into
High (30-66), Medium (14-29), or Low (3-13).
The same data layers were used as for the Forest Stewardship Potential model with the exception
of Forest Health, Wildfire Risk, and Development.
The resource threat layers are Forest Health, Wildfire Risk, and Development.
Page 29
Figure 9 Resource Threats
The Resource Threats grid is the final output of the SAP Resource Threats model. A subset of
the data themes comprising the Forest Stewardship Potential Analysis model (SAP_model) were
added together on a cell-by-cell basis to derive a richness score. The logic for weighting factors
used in the SAP_model could not be used for the resource threats, since the total list of layers
was separated into two categories. Therefore the Jenks method or “Natural Breaks”
classification method in the ESRI ArcView software was used to derive the resource threats
categories of High, Med, or Low. The natural breaks thresholds divide the classification into
High (12-30), Medium (9-11), or Low (8)
Existing and historic forest stewardship plans
Several of the objectives of the SAP project involved assessment of the stewardship values in
relation to the non-industrial private forest (NIPF) plans that have been developed since 1991.
The assessment involved identifying where the management plans were located, and determining
what percentage of existing NIPF management plans were on the state’s priority stewardship
lands. This also provided a basis for establishing future practices that can improve effectiveness
in addressing priority needs based on landscape scale resource issues.
Although Montana has over 1500 completed plans developed under the FSP, there were
approximately 1,200 non-industrial private forest ownership properties, representing
approximately 650,000 total acres that were intact with accurate ownership information.
Page 30
Figure 10 shows the PLSS sections (1x1 square mile) with completed stewardship plans, overlaid
on a map of all potential forest stewardship values (high, medium, low). A total of 220,424 acres
were estimated to be on lands rated high for forest stewardship potential, a total of 12,185 acres
were rated medium, and a total of 406,866 were rated low. Approximately 290,000 of the lands
rated in the low category, or 72 percent, were estimated to be on non-forestlands and nondeveloped lands. Looking only at the stewardship plans on private forestlands, 69 percent
(240,197 acres) were on lands rated high for forest stewardship potential, 11 percent were on
lands rated medium, and 20 percent on lands rated low. Caution is advised in reviewing these
results, due to the lack of precise location of stewardship plan mapping and differences in
acreage reporting over time. Further details are provided later in this section.
Page 31
Figure 10 Existing Stewardship Plans for Montana
Table 4 Existing Stewardship Plans for Montana
There were several challenges in accomplishing this analysis in Montana. Early planning efforts
did not require detailed map locations of the forest plan on the property, and thus, no map
records exist for the majority of properties. Incomplete legal descriptions exist for most plans,
and changes in ownership since the plan were developed also contributed to the challenge.
Fortunately, Montana has developed a comprehensive cadastral mapping effort involving all
parts of the state in one consistent geodatabase. This provides the ability to accurately map
future stewardship plans in conjunction with landowners in planning workshops. It also provides
some ability to map historic plans based on the owner name in property tax record databases.
The contracted portion of this project did not include funding for the labor intensive mapping
required to map every historic plan. DNRC staff plan to continue to develop these individual
plan locations over the next few years.
Page 32
In lieu of the ability to overlay the critical stewardship lands on NIPF plans and develop reports
on acreage totals, a method was developed to assign stewardship potential to each section of land
and associate those values with the portion of plans in each section of land. DNRC provided
township, range and section descriptions for private properties with forest stewardship plans in
two databases and two ArcView shapefiles, containing a total of 1228 owner records. There
were 33 records with no township, range and section and one record with an incorrect township,
range and section that could not be used. The remaining township, range and section
descriptions were used as provided by DNRC.
The databases were combined and a unique identification number was added for each owner.
The township, range, and section for each record were standardized. A record was created for
each unique township, range, and section combination. The total acreage for each owner was
divided by the total number of sections for each owner to determine the average acres per
section. About 200 records contain a total average acre per section that is larger than 640 acres
(the standard size for one section). That was most likely a result of incomplete township, range
and section descriptions for the property. The resulting database was joined to the public land
survey shape file and the sections selected were extracted to create a PLSS section map with
apportioned stewardship planning acres based on the reported values in the database tables
maintained by DNRC. The GIS section layer included a unique identification number for each
owner in that section (with up to five owners in some sections), the average acres per owner, and
the total average acres of all owners in each section.
The final step in summarizing the stewardship priority for each plan was to overlay the
apportioned section map on each of the final stewardship analysis layers and report the acres of
each plan in high, medium and low categories. Some sections included a mix of the three
categories, others included a predominance of one category. Without knowing where in the
section the precise forest plan location was, some level of abstraction was required in assigning
the values.
For the plans on critical private lands, the majority value was assigned to all plan acres in the
section, regardless of the number of acres of critical private lands in the section. For instance, if
40 percent of a section included critical private lands and 60 percent did not, the section was still
given a value. If 51 percent of the critical private forest lands were medium potential and 49
percent were low potential, all acres in the section were assigned to the medium potential
category.
Although the same logic of not knowing which part of a section included acres in a stewardship
plan applied to forest and non-forest portions of all critical private lands, the spatial location and
proportion of existing forestland was known. As a result, the process was modified slightly in
reporting acreage by stewardship potential categories for forest and non-forest. An additional
level of proportion was assigned based on the proportion of forest and non-forestlands for the
acreage summaries of categories of stewardship potential, and these proportions were passed
through to the stewardship plan acres. A detailed description of the exact GIS procedures used
for this analysis is included in Appendix B.
Page 33
Appendices
Appendix A: Final Maps
Map 1 – Classified Forest Stewardship Potential on Critical Private Lands for Montana
Map 2 - Classified Forest Stewardship Potential on Critical Private Lands and Existing
Stewardship Plans for Montana
Map 3 - Classified Forest Stewardship Potential on Critical Private Forestlands and
Existing Stewardship Plans for Montana
Map 4 - Resource Richness in Montana
Map 5 - Resource Threats in Montana
Map 6 - Classified Forest Stewardship Potential on Critical Non-Forestlands & NonDeveloped Lands and Existing Stewardship Plans for Montana
Map 7 - Forestland Ownership
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Appendix B: Documentation and Metadata
Metadata in FGDC compatible form was developed for the final analysis steps and included
process steps for each component of the analysis as shown below. Metadata on the source layers
was acquired for all layers possible, and came in a variety of formats. Some were in FGCD
format, others were not. These are provided as is in the data archive available from DNRC.
Identification_Information:
Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
Publication_Date: 12/14/06
Title: Stewardship Potential
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: raster digital data
Online_Linkage: \\MARIAS\C_Data on Marias\DNRC_SAP\ModelOutput\fsp_cpl
Description:
Abstract: State-wide assessment of critical private forestland in Montana
in 2006
Purpose: This state-wide assessment was accomplished using geographic
information system (GIS) analytic techniques and involved developing three
spatial layers-Forest Resource Richness, Forest Resource Threat, and Critical
Private Forestland. Results of the analysis were used to demonstrate the
value of forests and forestry on the regional economy, environmental health,
and quality of life.
Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Single_Date/Time:
Calendar_Date: 12/14/06
Currentness_Reference: publication date
Status:
Progress: Complete
Maintenance_and_Update_Frequency: Unknown
Spatial_Domain:
Bounding_Coordinates:
West_Bounding_Coordinate: -116.184204
East_Bounding_Coordinate: -103.605598
North_Bounding_Coordinate: 49.182457
South_Bounding_Coordinate: 44.233717
Keywords:
Theme:
Theme_Keyword_Thesaurus: None
Theme_Keyword: None
Access_Constraints: None
Use_Constraints:
Please refer interested parties to Montana Department of Natural
Resources (MTDNRC) for the most recent version of the data.
This data set is provided "as-is" without warranty of any kind. MTDNRC
makes no representations or warranties whatsoever with respect to the
accuracy or completeness of this data set and assumes no responsibility for
the suitability of this data set for a particular purpose; and MTDNRC will
not be liable for any damages incurred as a result of errors in this data
set.
Point_of_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Page 42
Contact_Organization: Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation
Contact_Person: Dan Rogers
Contact_Position: Stewardship Coordinator
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: 2705 Spurgin Road
City: Missoula
State_or_Province: MT
Postal_Code: 59804
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 406-542-4326
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 406-542-4203
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: danrogers@mt.gov
Native_Data_Set_Environment: Microsoft Windows XP Version 5.1 (Build 2600)
Service Pack 2; ESRI ArcCatalog 9.2.0.1324
Data_Quality_Information:
Lineage:
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
1. When processing layers with the tools available in the Spatial
Analyst toolbar, set the proper extent, cell size, projection, and analysis
mask in Options.
2. When using the Arc Toolbox set of Spatial Analyst tools, set the
proper extent, projection, mask, cell size, etc. in Environments.
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
INPUT LAYER: Public Lands (and timber industry lands)
Layer name: pub_and_plum
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Stewardship_PublicLands\
The Public Lands layer (pub_and_plum) is not used as an input layer
to the model, but is used as a mask to determine the extent of private lands.
This layer is derived from the following source layers:
a) Excluded Private (i.e. timber industry lands)
Source Layers: PCTC_Parcels.shp and Non_PCTC_Industry_parcels.shp
(provided by Dan Rogers of MT DNRC). These lands included Plum Creek
Timber Company, Stimson Lumber Company, F. H. Stoltze Land & Lumber Company,
and YT Timber company.
Data type: polygon
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\
Stewardship_PublicLands\PrivateExclusions\
Convert the timber industry lands shapefiles to grids assigning
industry lands equal to 1, and all other areas to NoData. Grids include pctc
and other_tc.
b) Public Lands (from Information Technology Service Division (ITSD),
Montana Department of Administration Stewardship geodatabase)
Source Layer: Publiclands
Data type: polygon - geodatabase feature class
Location:
\DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Stewardship_PublicLands\Stewardship.mdb\ParcelFeatures
c) Public Lands and Plum Cr. Timber industry lands
Page 43
These are the public and Plum Cr. Timber Co. lands selected from the
Publiclands feature class.
Source Layer: stew_pandp
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\ Stewardship_PublicLands\
Select and flag public lands polygons in the Publiclands feature
class as per the following list:
AGENCY
OWN code
PublicCode
Unknown
0
0
US Government
10
1
US Bureau of Land Management
11
1
US Bureau of Reclamation
12
1
US Fish and Wildlife Service
13
1
National Park Service 14
1
US Forest Service
15
1
US Dept of Agriculture
16
1
US Army Corps of Engineers 17
1
US Dept of Defense
18
1
State of Montana
20
1
Montana State Trust Lands
21
1
Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 22
1
Montana University System
23
1
Montana Dept of Corrections 24
1
Montana Dept of Transportation
25
1
Montana Dept of Natural Resources Water Projects
Local Government
30
1
County Government
31
1
City Government 32
1
Bureau of Indian Affairs Trust Land
40
0
Blackfeet Tribal Lands
41
0
Crow Tribal Lands
42
0
Salish and Kootenai Tribal Lands 43
0
Fort Belknap Tribal Lands
44
0
Fort Peck Tribal Lands
45
0
Northern Cheyenne Tribal Lands
46
0
Chippewa-Cree Tribal Lands 47
0
Turtle Mountain Alloted Lands
48
0
Private Land
50
0
Plum Creek Timber Company
52
1
Private Land Trusts
60
0
The Nature Conservancy
61
0
Montana Land Reliance 62
0
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
63
0
Ducks Unlimited 64
0
Boone and Crockett Club
65
0
Five Valleys Land Trust
66
0
Flathead Land Trust
67
0
Gallatin Valley Land Trust 68
0
Prickly Pear Land Trust
69
0
Bitter Root Land Trust
71
0
Blackfeet Land Trust 72
0
Mid-Yellowstone Land Trust 73
0
Water
81
1
Water - reserved/withdrawn by federal agency 81
Page 44
26
1
1
Water
Wildlife, and
Water
Water
Water
Water
- state trust land, state water project or state Fish,
Parks
82
1
- tribal 84
1
- private 85
1
- navigable (state Dept of Natural Resources) 88
1
- both state and federal claims
89
1
Convert the selected public lands polygons to a grid with cell value
of 1 for areas of public lands, water, and Plum Cr. lands, and NoData for all
other areas. Note: Plum Cr. timber industry lands are included with public
lands.
d) Public Lands (from NRIS Stewardship layer)
Source Layer: ab105.shp
Data type: polygon
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Stewardship_PublicLands\
Metadata: Metadata for Land Ownership and Managed Areas in Montana
(ab105).htm
Note: The Montana NRIS stewardship layer (ab105.shp) was used to
fill in where the stewardship Publiclands data is incomplete.
e) Public Lands and Plum Cr.
These are the public and Plum Cr. Timber Co. lands selected from the
stewardship
shapefile, ab105.shp
Source Layer: ab105_pandp
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\ Stewardship_PublicLands\
i. Select and flag public lands AND Plum Cr. Timber Co. polygons as
per the list shown above for the Publiclands feature class. Convert selected
polygons to a grid, public and timber industry lands = 1, other = 0.
ii. Combine source layers to create the public lands layer to be
used for the proximity to public lands layer and as the mask for generating
the private forest land layer. Since the DNRC forest stewardship program
focuses on non-corporate forest lands, timber industry lands were included in
the "public lands" layer. Layers containing public lands and Plum Cr. lands
plus the additional timber industry lands layer provided by DNRC were
combined. The layers were combined such that the DNRC timber industry lands
took precedence, next were the selected areas from the stewardship
Publiclands feature class, stew_pandp, and then the selected public and Plum
Cr. polygons from the NRIS stewardship layer, ab105_pandp, were used to fill
in any remaining gaps (i.e. pub_and_plum = pctc + other_tc + stew_pandp +
ab105_pandp).
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
INPUT LAYER: Private Forestlands
Layer name: privatefor051
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
The Private Forestlands layer is forest areas selected from the
National Land Cover Database (NLCD) with public and large timber companies'
lands masked out with the Public Lands layer (pub_and_plum).
Page 45
a) NLCD
Source Layer: mt_nlcd
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\NLCD\
Metadata: mt_nlcd.html
National Land Cover Database Classification:
Value
Land Cover Class
11 Open Water
12 Perennial Ice/Snow
21 Low Intensity Residential
22 High Intensity Residential
23 Commercial/Industrial/Transportation
31 Bare Rock/Sand/Clay
32 Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits
33 Transitional
41 Deciduous Forest
42 Evergreen Forest
43 Mixed Forest
51 Shrubland
61 Orchards/Vineyards/Other
71 Grasslands/Herbaceous
81 Pasture/Hay
82 Row Crops
83 Small Grains
84 Fallow
85 Urban/Recreational Grasses
91 Woody Wetlands
92 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
b) Reclassified NLCD
Source Layer: nlcd_for051
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\NLCD\
Reclassify NLCD (mt_nlcd) with Spatial Analyst to make nlcd_for051.
Reclassify values 41, 42, 43, and 91 to 1 and all other values to 0.
Shrublands (value 51) were not included in the forest layer.
c) Public lands (as described above)
Source Layer: pub_and_plum
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Stewardship_PublicLands\
Mask NLCD forest with Public lands: The private forest layer is
generated by masking out all NLCD forest lands, nlcd_for051, that are
overlaid by areas of "public land" in the public lands layer, pub_and_plum.
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
INPUT LAYER: Forest patches
Layer name: forpatches051
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
a) Roads
Source Layer: Road
Data type: line
Page 46
Location:
\DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Transportation\TransportationAddressingFramework_16.mdb\TransportationFeatures
Metadata: View in ArcCatalog
b) Forest
Source Layer: nlcd_for051
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\NLCD\
Note: Initial specifications called for roads to be buffered by
type: 100 feet for interstates, 55 feet for state and federal highways, and
38 feet for all other roads. But, because the analysis layers will be either
30 meter or 90 meter cell grids, it is impossible to use the desired buffers.
Buffering the linear roads and then creating grids from the buffer polygons,
creates undesired breaks in the road corridor continuity. Also, it is
impossible to exactly replicate 38 ft., 55 ft., or 100 ft. buffer polygons
with 30 or 90 meter cells. However, creating a road grid, with 30 meter cell
size, directly from the vector road features maintains continuity of road
corridors and, more or less, approximates a buffer zone along the roads. The
grid representation of a linear feature (i.e. roads) resulted in buffer zones
ranging from about 0 to over 120 feet on one side of the linear element, but
continuity was maintained when using the FOUR option with the regiongroup
routine. Using FOUR prevented cells that only have adjacent corners from
being assigned to the same group, so it did not connect forest patches on
opposite sides of a road.
Road type is specified in the field, System (and also DisplayClass).
System-DisplayClass
NHS INTERSTATE-1
NHS NON-INTERSTATE-2
OFF SYSTEM-6
OTHER-8
PRIMARY-3
SECONDARY-4
URBAN-5
USFS-7
i.
Generate the raster road layer using DisplayClass as the value
field.
ii. Use the Arc Toolbox Expand tool with the road grid, and set the
parameters as follows: Number of cells = 1, and Zone value = 1 (to expand the
interstate road sections by one additional cell on either side.
iii. Use the expanded road grid as a mask to cut out the forest
areas from the NLCD forest layer that fall within the road "buffer" zones.
That is, areas that were classified as forest in NLCD that are in a road
buffer area are set to non-forest.
iv. Use the REGIONGROUP function to assign unique IDs to contiguous
groups of grid cells.
(Use the FOUR option in the REGIONGROUP function for connectivity
because FOUR only connects adjacent cells that have coincident sides, EIGHT
will also connect cells with adjacent corners which would connect forest
patches on opposite sides of roads.)
v. Reclassify the groups by area. Forest patches equal to or
greater than 100 acres are assigned a value of 1, and those less than 100
acres are set equal to 0 (i.e. not shown as forest). In order to use an
Page 47
expression to reclassify the forest patches grid, the Arc Toolbox CON tool
must be used.
vi. Parameters:
input condition (input grid): patch_groups
true: 1
false: 0
output grid: forpatches051
Expression: Value <> 0 AND Count >= 450*
* (450 cells of 30 meter cell size is approximately 100 acres.)
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
INPUT LAYER: Riparian Areas
Layer name: riparian
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
a) NHD
Source Layer: nhd_drain.shp
Data type: line
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Hydro\NHD\
Metadata: nhd_drain.html, fcode.html
b) NHD
Source Layer: nhd_lake.shp
Data type: polygon
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Hydro\NHD\
Metadata: nhd_lake.html, & fcode.html
c) NHD selected
Source Layer: nhd_perennial&55800.shp
Data type: line
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Hydro\NHD\
Select stream segments from nhd_drain.shp where FCODE = 46004
(description: Hydrographic Category|perennial; Positional Accuracy|definite)
and FCODE = 55800 (description: feature type only: no attributes), and
extract those stream segments to create the nhd_perennial&55800.shp layer.
Note: The 55800 stream segments are also used because some streams
and rivers that are perennial (such as portions of the Clark Fork River) are
not coded 46004. It appears that the stream segments that overlay polygons
in the NHD_wb (water bodies) data set are for maintaining connectivity of the
stream routes through those water bodies and are coded 55800. These water
bodies include some sections of rivers that are shown as polygons in addition
to lakes, therefore some sections of perennial streams and rivers are missing
if only the 46004s are selected.
i. The "55800" stream segments in nhd_perennial&55800.shp stream
layer that pass through lake and pond polygons of the nhd_lake.shp layer are
selected, using the spatial select tool, and deleted from the perennial
stream layer.
ii. The remaining perennial streams are buffered by 300ft.
iii. Convert the perennial stream buffer polygons to a grid with
grid value = 1 for riparian corridors and 0 for non-riparian areas.
Page 48
Note: Riparian classifications in the National Wetlands Inventory
were available for a portion of Montana, but they were not used for riparian
for the Montana SAP.
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
INPUT LAYER: Wetlands
Layer name: wetlands
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
a) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Source Layer: nwi_montana.shp
Data type: polygon
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Wetlands\NWI\
Metadata: NWI.htm
i. Merged the available NWI 7.5 minute quadrangle map tiles into a
state wide NWI layer (nwi_montana.shp).
ii. Added field Class, and attributed according to lookup table
shown below as Wetland, Riparian, or blank.
iii. Convert NWI poly features to grid on Class as lookup field.
Wetland areas were assigned a cell value of 2 and riparian was set to 3.
Note: the NWI is only available for a portion of Montana.
NWI classes:
ATTRIBUTE CLASS
PSSA
Riparian
PSSB
Riparian
PSSC
Riparian
PUSA
Riparian
PUBG
Riparian
PUSC
Riparian
PEMB
Wetland
PEMA
Wetland
PEMC
Wetland
PABF
Wetland
PABG
Wetland
PEMF
Wetland
PFOA
Wetland
PFOB
Wetland
PFOC
Wetland
PEMH
Wetland
L1UBGh
Wetland
L1UBH
Wetland
L1UBHh
Wetland
L2ABFh
Wetland
L2ABG
Wetland
L2UBF
Wetland
L2USA
Wetland
L2USC
Wetland
L2USCh
Wetland
R2ABG
Wetland
R2UBF
Wetland
R2UBG
Wetland
R2UBH
Wetland
R2USA
Wetland
Page 49
R2USC
R3RBH
R3UBF
R3UBG
R3UBH
R3USA
R3USC
R4SBC
R4SBF
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
Wetland
See \DNRC SAP\BaseData\Wetlands\NWI\NWI_lookuptable.txt
b) NLCD
Source Layer: mt_nlcd
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\NLCD\
Metadata: mt_nlcd.htm
Used NWI where available and filled in areas where it was not
available with NLCD, Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands (value = 92).
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
INPUT LAYER: Slope
Layer name: pf_slope40
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
a) DEM
Source Layer: mtdem30
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Topography\
Metadata: National Elevation Dataset for Montana.html
Generate percent slope grid from the 30 meter resolution DEM and then
reclassify the slope grid to a value of 1 for areas with slope 0 to 40
percent, and 0 for areas with greater than 40 percent slope.
b) Private Forest Lands
Source Layer: privatefor051
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
Use the private forest lands layer as a mask to select only slope
values for the areas that fall within private forestlands, all other areas
are given a slope value of 0.
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
INPUT LAYER: Proximity to Public lands
Layer name: prox2pub
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
a) Public lands
Source Layer:: pub_and_plum
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Stewardship_PublicLands\
Page 50
i. Use the Regiongroup routine to assign a unique ID to each
contiguous group of cells in the pub_and_plum layer. Use the new public
lands group layer and the zone layer to calculate the zonal stats of forest
in public lands.
ii. Select the public lands groups in which 10 percent or more of
the area overlays forest.
iii. Generate a distance-from grid for the public lands groups that
contain 10 percent or more forest. Then reclassify so any grid cells within
800 meters (approximately ½ mile) of the selected public lands groups are
coded 1 and all other areas are 0.
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
INPUT LAYER: Priority Watersheds
Layer name: priorityh2o6
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
a) 6th-code hydrologic subbasins
Source Layer: HUC6th.shp (reprojected from huc12 polygon coverage)
Data type: polygon
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Hydro\
b) TMDL 303(d) impaired or threatened waters
Source Layer: tmdlstr2004.shp (streams) & wb04cat.shp (lakes)
Data type: line and polygon
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Hydro\305b\
Metadata: "Water Quality Integrated Report For Montana 2004"
(2004_Overview.pdf) has information about the category ratings.
i. Select records from tmdlstr2004.shp and wb04cat.shp with SEGCOM
values of 4 or 5. Use spatial select to select all 6th code HUC polygons
that intersect any streams or lakes with a category 4 or 5 impaired waters
classification.
ii. Convert the 6th code HUC polygon layer to a grid with the
polygons containing TMDL category 4 or 5 impaired waters coded to 1 and
unimpaired areas coded 0.
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
INPUT LAYER: Public Water Supply
Layer name: pws
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
Public Water Supply Data Restrictions:
Release of this layer to the general public directly or through other
agencies or entities is not authorized by DEQ.
Please refer to MetaSWP_PWS.doc for the full text on data
restrictions.
a) Public Water Sources Locations
Source Layer: SW_PWSs.shp
Data type: point
Description: Spring, well, or surface water intake locations of
public water supply systems, know as the Source Water Protection Database
maintained by the Source Water Protection Program of the Montana DEQ.
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\PWSS\
Metadata: MetaSWP_PWS.doc
Page 51
b) 5th-code hydrologic subbasins
Source Layer: HUC5th.shp
Data type: polygon
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Hydro\
i. Select Class = 'C' (community water source), from SW_PWSs.shp.
ii. Use spatial select to select the 5th-code subbasins that contain
one or more of the selected SW_PWSs.shp community water source points.
iii. Convert HUC5th polygon layer to a grid with a grid value of 1
for the selected subbasins and 0 for the remaining polygons.
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
INPUT LAYER: Threatened & Endangered Species
Layer name: t_and_e
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
Threatened and Endangered Species Data Restrictions: The information
provided by MTNHP is intended for distribution or use only within your
department, agency, or business.
Refer to data agreement 060606 gsi.doc for the full text on data
restrictions.
a) Montana threatened & endangered
Source Layer: mt_te.shp
Data type: polygon
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\T&E\
Metadata: eo_metadata.htm and SOC_Explain.pdf
Convert to grid where polygons containing T&E species are assigned a
grid value of 1 and all other areas are 0.
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
INPUT LAYER: Forest Productivity
Layer name: forprod4cls
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
a) UM/MT DOR Forest Productivity
Source Layer: ForestProductivity_sp83.shp
Data type: polygon
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Forest\ForestProductivity\
Add integer field (SAP_CODE) to the UM forest productivity cover and
classify polygons such that those with existing GridCodes (productivity
classes) of -9999, 1, 2, 3, and 8 are given a SAP_CODE 0, and GridCodes 4, 5,
6, and 7 are reclassified to 3, 6, 12, and 13 respectively. Converted to
grid based on SAP_CODE value.
Forest Productivity GridCode
Description SAP_CODE
-9999
unknown
0
1
Non forest 0
2
Non commercial (hardwoods & riparian)
0
3
Commercial (5 - 15 acres) 0
4
25 - 45 cu ft/ac/yr
3
5
45 - 65 cu ft/ac/yr
6
Page 52
6
65 - 85 cu ft/ac/yr
12
7
85+ cu ft/ac/yr
13
8
Water 0
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
INPUT LAYER: Wildfire Risk
Layer name: wildfire_pf
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
a) LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment Fire Regime Condition Classes
Source Layer: wildfire
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\USFS_R1\Landfire\
Metadata: LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment Fire Regime Condition Classes metadata.htm
Reclassified LANDFIRE data. Fire regime condition classes II and III
were assigned a grid value 1 and all other classes were set to 0.
FRCC_name LANDFIRE Code
Wildfire value
01: FRCC 1
Fire Regime Condition Class I 0
02: FRCC 2
Fire Regime Condition Class II
03: FRCC 3
Fire Regime Condition Class III
04: Water
Water
0
05: Snow/Ice
Snow / Ice 0
06: Barren
Bare Rock / Sand / Clay 0
07: Developed
Urban/Transportation/Mines/Quarries
08: Agriculture Agriculture 0
09: Non-Classified V Wetlands / Alpine / Others
10: Unclassified
Unclassified / Unknown 0
1
1
0
0
2) Private forestland
Source Layer: privatefor051
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
Mask areas not in private forest lands
Assign only areas within private forest lands a wildfire risk score,
all other areas will have a wildfire value of 0.
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
INPUT LAYER: Forest Health (Insects & Disease)
Layer name: health2005ads
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
a) Aerial Detection Survey
Source Layer: aerial_detection_survey_2005
Data type: polygon
Location:
\DNRC_SAP\BaseData\USFS_R1\Insect&Disease\aerial_detection_srvy_r1_00_05.mdb\
aerial_detection_srvy_r1_01_05
Metadata: aerial_detection_svry_r1_00_05.htm
i. Select polygons where one or more of the attributes, BUG1, BUG2,
or BUG3, contain one of the following insect & disease codes:
Page 53
Bug
1
2
4
5
6
7
9
11
20
50
51
Code Description
Douglas-fir beetle
Engelmann spruce beetle
Mountain pine beetle (WP)
Mountain pine beetle (PP)
Mountain pine beetle (LPP)
Mountain pine beetle (WBP or Lim.)
Fir engraver
Western balsam bark beetle (SAF)
Spruce budworm, heavy defoliator
White pine blister rust
Dwarf mistletoe
ii. Convert to grid classifying the selected areas as 1 and all
other areas as 0
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
INPUT LAYER: Development
Layer name: development
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
a) Forecasted Residential Structures Per Quarter Section, STATUS QUO
SCENARIO
Source Layer: statusquo2025.shp
Data exist for 31 central and western Montana counties: Beaverhead,
Big Horn, Broadwater, Carbon, Cascade, Deer Lodge, Flathead, Gallatin,
Glacier, Granite, Jefferson, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Liberty, Lincoln,
Madison, Meagher, Mineral, Missoula, Park, Pondera, Powell, Ravalli, Sanders,
Silver Bow, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Teton, Toole, Treasure, and Yellowstone.
Data type: polygon
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Development\
Metadata: statusquo2025.txt
Convert shapefile to a grid with areas forecasted to have greater
than 5 homes per quarter section set equal to 1 and areas forecasted to have
5 or less homes or areas that were not analyzed are assigned a grid value of
0.
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
INPUT LAYER: Critical Private Lands Mask
Layer name: critplmask
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
This is the private lands layer used to define the area of analysis
in the stewardship potential model. It includes both forest and nonforest
private lands. The areas masked or excluded from analysis by the model are
public lands and industrial forest company lands, and also open water,
quarries, bare rock and sand, perennial ice and snow, and industrial/urban
areas as identified by NLCD (values = 11, 12, 21, 22, 23, 31, and 32).
a) NLCD
Source Layer: mt_nlcd
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\NLCD\
Page 54
Metadata:
mt_nlcd.htm
b) Public Lands (and timber industry lands)
Source Layer: pub_and_plum
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Stewardship_PublicLands\
i. Generate water/urban mask by setting areas where NLCD = 11, 12,
21, 22, 23, 31, and 32 to NoData and all other areas are set to 1.
ii. Make public lands mask by setting all areas of public and timber
industry lands to NoData.
iii. Combine water/urban mask with public lands mask to create
Critical Private Forest Lands mask.
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
INPUT LAYER: Private Forestland Mask
Layer name: pfmask051
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
This layer is identical to the Private Forestlands layer,
privatefor051, except the cells with a value of 0 in that layer have been
converted to NoData for the Private Forestland Mask. This limits map
calculations or analysis routines to only those areas classified as Private
Forestlands.
a) Private forestland
Source Layer: privatefor051
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
Convert zero value cells to NoData.
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
INPUT LAYER: Nonforest Nondeveloped Mask
Layer name: nfnd_mask
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
This is the mask used for calculations and modeling on nonforest and
nondeveloped areas. It is the nonforest part of the Critical Private Lands
Mask with developed areas also removed.
a) Critical Private Lands Mask
Source Layer: critplmask
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
b) Private forestland
Source Layer: privatefor051
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
c) Development
Source Layer: development
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\InputGrids\
Page 55
Private forestland areas and developed areas are subtracted from the
Critical Private Lands Mask.
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
INPUT LAYER: Forestland Ownership
Layer name: forestlandown
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Stewardship_Publiclands\
Ownership layer derived by combining the Plum Creek Timber Company,
other large timber companies, ITSD Publiclands, and NRIS stewardship layers,
i.e. pctc, other_tc, Publiclands, and ab105. The OWN code was used for the
grid value, with the pctc areas set equal to 952, and the other_tc areas
coded as 953. Ownership is shown only on forest lands as per the nlcd_for051
layer. The following categories were not included: unknown, local
government, county government, city government, land trusts, and water.
The
forestland layer was used for the Forestland Ownership map (map 7) by theming
on the grid value. Owners were grouped into five categories - Federal,
State, Tribal, Nonindustrial Private Forest (NIPF), and Industry. See
\DNRC_SAP\Toolbox\forestland ownership.jpg and
\DNRC_SAP\Toolbox\owner_for_graph.xls
AGENCY
Forestland Ownership
Unknown
NA
US Government
Federal
US Bureau of Land Management
Federal
US Bureau of Reclamation
Federal
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal
National Park Service Federal
US Forest Service
Federal
US Dept of Agriculture
Federal
US Army Corps of Engineers Federal
US Dept of Defense
Federal
State of Montana
State
Montana State Trust Lands
State
Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks State
Montana University System
State
Montana Dept of Corrections State
Montana Dept of Transportation
State
Montana Dept of Natural Resources Water Projects
Local Government
NA
County Government
NA
City Government NA
Bureau of Indian Affairs Trust Land
Tribal
Blackfeet Tribal Lands
Tribal
Crow Tribal Lands
Tribal
Salish and Kootenai Tribal Lands Tribal
Fort Belknap Tribal Lands
Tribal
Fort Peck Tribal Lands
Tribal
Northern Cheyenne Tribal Lands
Tribal
Chippewa-Cree Tribal Lands Tribal
Turtle Mountain Alloted Lands
Tribal
Private Land (non-industrial)
NIPF
Private Land (other timber companies)
Industry
Plum Creek Timber Company
Industry
Private Land Trusts
NA
Page 56
State
The Nature Conservancy
NA
Montana Land Reliance NA
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
NA
Ducks Unlimited NA
Boone and Crockett Club
NA
Five Valleys Land Trust
NA
Flathead Land Trust
NA
Gallatin Valley Land Trust NA
Prickly Pear Land Trust
NA
Bitter Root Land Trust
NA
Blackfeet Land Trust NA
Mid-Yellowstone Land Trust NA
Water
NA
Water - reserved/withdrawn by federal agency NA
Water - state trust land, state water project or state Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks
NA
Water - tribal NA
Water - private NA
Water - navigable (state Dept of Natural Resources) NA
Water - both state and federal claims
NA
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
INPUT LAYER: Existing Stewardship Plans
DNRC provided township, range and section descriptions for private
properties with forest stewardship plans in two databases and two ArcView
shapefiles, containing a total of 1228 owner records. There were 33 records
with no township, range and section and one record with an incorrect
township, range and section that could not be used. The remaining township,
range and section descriptions were used as provided by DNRC.
i.
Combine databases from DNRC
a) Source Layer: legaldescriptions82106
Data type: database
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Existing_Plan_Areas\SAP legal
descriptions.mdb
b) Source Layer: Teigen2_Union.shp
Data type: polygon
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Existing_Plan_Areas\
c) Source Layer: SiebenUnionALL.shp
Data type: polygon
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Existing_Plan_Areas\
d) Source Layer: LEGALS_101306.xls
Data type: spreadsheet
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Existing_Plan_Areas\
ii.
See
See
See
See
Add unique identification number for each owner
"ID" in legaldescriptions82106
"Owner_ID" in Teigen2_Union.shp (owner_id #1713 only)
"Owner_ID" in SiebenUnionALL.shp (owner_id #1908 only)
"Owner_ID" in LEGALS_101306.xls (owner_id #1290 & #1871 only)
iii.
Page 57
Standardize township, range, and section for each record
iv. Create record for each unique township, range, and section
combination
v. Divide the total listed acreage for each owner by the total
number of sections to determine the average acres per section
vi. Join the resulting database to the public land survey shape file
Source Layer: mtplsssp
Data type: polygon
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Existing_Plan_Areas\
vii.
Extract the selected sections selected to create a layer
with apportioned stewardship planning acres based on the reported values in
the database tables maintained by DNRC. The section layer included:
a. a unique identification number for each owner in that section
(with up to five owners in some sections): Owner1, Owner2, etc.
b. the average acres per owner: Avg_Acr_01, Avg_Acr_02, etc.
c. the total average acres of all owners in each section: TotAvgAcr
The final steps in summarizing the stewardship priority for each plan
were to overlay the apportioned section map on each of the final stewardship
analysis layers and report the acres of each plan in high, medium and low
categories
Layer name: sap_sections2
Data type: polygon
Location: \DNRC_SAP\BaseData\Existing_Plan_Areas\
i. Merge the Private Forestlands (PF) mask and the Non-Forestlands &
Non-Developed lands (NFND) mask into one layer: pf_nfnd_mask
ii. Use Spatial Analyst Zonal Tool, Tabulate Area, to sum the area of
PF and NFND within each SAP section. This generated a database file with a
record for each SAP section and the area (in map units) of PF and/or NFND in
that section (pf_nfnd_area_per_sapsect.dbf).
iii.
Add three new fields to the database:
a) total area
b) fractional part of PF of the total for each section
c) fractional part of NFND of the total for each section
iv. Add the areas of PF and NFND for each section to populate the
Total attribute.
v. Calculate the fractional part of PF and NFND, e.g. Percent_PF =
Total/Area_PF (note - the "Percent" values are fractions).
vi. Multiply the TotAvgAcr by the fractional value for PF and NFND to
get the acreage of PF and NFND in each SAP section.
vii.
Add fields to the attribute table of the SAP sections
shapefile:
a) Percent_PF
b) Percent_NF
c) PF_TotAc
d) NFND_TotAc
viii.
Join the pf_nfnd_area_per_sapsect.dbf table to the SAP
sections attribute table and populate the added fields from the corresponding
fields in the joined table.
ix. Use Spatial Analyst Zonal Tool, Zonal Statistics as Table, to
find the majority value of the stewardship potential rank for just the PF
areas, then just the NFND areas, and finally for the overall critical private
lands (CPL) in each SAP section.
Page 58
x. Join the stats tables to the SAP sections attribute table.
xi. Add fields to the SAP section attribute table and then populate
with the values from the joined majority tables.
a) PF_ major
b) NFND_ major
c) CPFL_major
xii.
Summarize the acreage of High, Med, and Low stewardship
potential for each category of critical private lands:
a) Critical private forestlands (PF)
b) Critical non-forestlands & non-developed lands (NFND)
c) Critical private lands (CPL)
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
MODEL OUTPUT LAYER: Stewardship Potential
Layer name: fsp_cpl
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\ModelOutput\
Metadata: metadata.xml
This grid is the result of the Forest Stewardship Potential Analysis
overlay model (the SAP_model in the SAP ArcToolbox). The cell values of
fsp_cpl are the combined scores from all of the resource richness and
resource threats layers. Each input layer, with the exception of the forest
productivity layer, forprod4cls, is a binary grid with values of 1 or 0
identifying presence or absence of that particular forest resource or threat.
Each richness and threat layer was assigned a score based on its relative
influence on assessment of forest management potential. The input layers in
the model were multiplied by their assigned score and then the weighted
layers were added on a cell-by-cell basis to create the Classified Forest
Stewardship Potential on Critical Private Lands layer: fsp_cpl.
See \DNRC_SAP\Toolbox\SAP.tbx
See \DNRC_SAP\Toolbox\SAP_Model.jpg
See \DNRC_SAP\Toolbox\SAP_Tool.htm
See \DNRC_SAP\Toolbox\ SAP_Tool.xml
See \DNRC_SAP\Toolbox\ SAP_Tool_report.xml
Forest Stewardship Potential data layers:
Data Theme
Weighting Factor
Private Forestland
15
Forest Productivity
3, 6, 12, 13*
Forest Health
11
Wildfire Risk
11
Development
8
Proximity to Public Lands
8
Forest Patches 7
Priority Watersheds
7
Riparian River Areas 6
Public Water Supply
5
Threatened & Endangered Species
3
Slope
3
Wetlands 3
* These are the productivity values already assigned for this layer,
no other weighting factor is applied. See previous description for Forest
Productivity.
Process_Step:
Page 59
Process_Description:
MODEL OUTPUT LAYER: Classified Forest Stewardship Potential on
Critical Private Lands
Layer name: cfsp_cpl
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\ModelOutput\
Metadata: metadata.xml
This is the Classified Forest Stewardship Potential on Critical
Private Lands
layer (fsp_cpl) classified into three categories of potential
stewardship - High, Med, & Low. The classification breaks were determined by
the model input scoring matrix and thresholds set by the SAP subcommittee of
the MFSSC committee, using the following rules:
The classification was derived from the final value for the sum of
grid layers used in the "Classified forest stewardship potential on critical
private lands" layer (grid cells in a 30 meter x 30 meter unit of analysis)
High - Those that had a value greater than or equal to 39, the sum
of the highest three map layers scores (39-91)
Medium - Those that had a value less than 39, the sum of the highest
three map layers scores AND had a score greater than 32, the sum of the
remaining layers not in the top 3, but with forest related influence in the
model (33-38)
Low - Those that had a value less than or equal to 32, with no forest
related influence in the model (1-32)
Source Layer name: fsp_cpl
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\ModelOutput\
Metadata: metadata.xml
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
MODEL OUTPUT LAYER: Classified Forest Stewardship Potential on
Critical Private Forestlands
Layer name: cfsp_pf
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\ModelOutput\
Metadata: metadata.xml
This is the same stewardship potential classifications as cfsp_cpl,
but limited to private forestland areas as defined by the Private Forestland
layer, privatefor051.
Source Layer name: cfsp_cpl
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\ModelOutput\
Metadata: metadata.xml
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
MODEL OUTPUT LAYER: Classified Forest Stewardship Potential on
Critical Private Non-forestlands & Non-developed Lands
Layer name: cfsp_cpnf
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\ModelOutput\
Metadata: metadata.xml
Page 60
This layer was also extracted from the classified Classified Forest
Stewardship Potential on Critical Private Lands layer, cfsp_cpl, for areas
designated as non-forestlands and non-developed. It is the inverse of the
private forestlands layer with areas of development, as determined by the
development layer, also removed.
Source Layer name: fsp_cpl
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\ModelOutput\
Metadata: metadata.xml
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
MODEL OUTPUT LAYER: Resource Richness
Layer name: res_richness
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\ModelOutput\
Metadata: metadata.xml
This grid is the final output of the SAP Resource Richness model. A
subset of the data themes comprising the Forest Stewardship Potential
Analysis model (SAP_model) were added together on a cell-by-cell basis to
derive a richness score. The logic for weighting factors used in the
SAP_model could not be used for the resource richness, since the total list
of layers was separated into two categories. Therefore the Jenks method or
"Natural Breaks" classification method in the ESRI ArcView software was used
to derive the resource richness categories of High, Med, or Low. The
natural breaks thresholds divide the classification into:
High (30-66)
Medium (14-29)
Low (3-13)
See
See
See
See
\DNRC_SAP\Toolbox\Resource_Richness_tool.htm
\DNRC_SAP\Toolbox\Resource_Richness_tool.jpg
\DNRC_SAP\Toolbox\Resource_Richness_tool.xml
\DNRC_SAP\Toolbox\Resource_Richness_tool_report.xml
The same data layers were used as for the Forest Stewardship
Potential model with the exception of Forest Health, Wildfire Risk, and
Development.
The unclassified grid is also included.
Source Layer name: richness
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\ModelOutput\
Process_Step:
Process_Description:
MODEL OUTPUT LAYER: Resource Threats
Layer name: res_threats
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\ModelOutput\
Metadata: metadata.xml
Like the Resource Richness model, this is a subset of the Forest
Stewardship Potential model. The logic for weighting factors used in the
SAP_model could not be used for the resource threats, since the total list of
layers was separated into two categories. Therefore the Jenks method or
Page 61
"Natural Breaks" classification method in the ESRI ArcView software was used
to derive the resource threats categories of High, Med, or Low. The natural
breaks thresholds divide the classification into:
High (12-30)
Medium (9-11)
Low (8)
See
See
See
See
\DNRC_SAP\Toolbox\Resource_Threats_tool.htm
\DNRC_SAP\Toolbox\Resource_ Threats _tool.jpg
\DNRC_SAP\Toolbox\Resource_ Threats _tool.xml
\DNRC_SAP\Toolbox\Resource_ Threats _tool_report.xml
The resource threat layers are Forest Health, Wildfire Risk, and
Development.
The unclassified grid is also included.
Source Layer name: threats
Data type: raster
Location: \DNRC_SAP\ModelOutput\
Spatial_Data_Organization_Information:
Direct_Spatial_Reference_Method: Raster
Raster_Object_Information:
Raster_Object_Type: Grid Cell
Row_Count: 17696
Column_Count: 30638
Vertical_Count: 1
Spatial_Reference_Information:
Horizontal_Coordinate_System_Definition:
Planar:
Grid_Coordinate_System:
Grid_Coordinate_System_Name: State Plane Coordinate System 1983
State_Plane_Coordinate_System:
SPCS_Zone_Identifier: 2500
Lambert_Conformal_Conic:
Standard_Parallel: 45.000000
Standard_Parallel: 49.000000
Longitude_of_Central_Meridian: -109.500000
Latitude_of_Projection_Origin: 44.250000
False_Easting: 600000.000000
False_Northing: 0.000000
Planar_Coordinate_Information:
Planar_Coordinate_Encoding_Method: row and column
Coordinate_Representation:
Abscissa_Resolution: 30.000000
Ordinate_Resolution: 30.000000
Planar_Distance_Units: meters
Geodetic_Model:
Horizontal_Datum_Name: North American Datum of 1983
Ellipsoid_Name: Geodetic Reference System 80
Semi-major_Axis: 6378137.000000
Denominator_of_Flattening_Ratio: 298.257222
Entity_and_Attribute_Information:
Detailed_Description:
Entity_Type:
Entity_Type_Label: fsp_cpl.vat
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: Rowid
Attribute_Definition: Internal feature number.
Page 62
Attribute_Definition_Source: ESRI
Attribute_Domain_Values:
Unrepresentable_Domain: Sequential unique whole numbers that are
automatically generated.
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: VALUE
Attribute:
Attribute_Label: COUNT
Distribution_Information:
Distributor:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation
Contact_Person: Dan Rogers
Contact_Position: Stewardship Coordinator
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: 2705 Spurgin Road
City: Missoula
State_or_Province: MT
Postal_Code: 59804
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 406-542-4326
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 406-542-4203
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: danrogers@mt.gov
Resource_Description: Downloadable Data
Standard_Order_Process:
Digital_Form:
Digital_Transfer_Information:
Transfer_Size: 76.564
Metadata_Reference_Information:
Metadata_Date: 20061221
Metadata_Contact:
Contact_Information:
Contact_Organization_Primary:
Contact_Organization: Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation
Contact_Person: Dan Rogers
Contact_Position: Stewardship Coordinator
Contact_Address:
Address_Type: mailing and physical address
Address: 2705 Spurgin Road
City: Missoula
State_or_Province: MT
Postal_Code: 59804
Country: USA
Contact_Voice_Telephone: 406-542-4326
Contact_Facsimile_Telephone: 406-542-4203
Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: danrogers@mt.gov
Metadata_Standard_Name: FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial
Metadata
Metadata_Standard_Version: FGDC-STD-001-1998
Metadata_Time_Convention: local time
Metadata_Extensions:
Online_Linkage: http://www.esri.com/metadata/esriprof80.html
Profile_Name: ESRI Metadata Profile
Page 63